Dynamic spinal implants incorporating cartilage bearing graft material

ABSTRACT

A dynamic spinal implant utilizes cartilage bearing graft material in dynamic disc replacement and/or facet arthroplasty. Methods and apparatus for dynamic spinal implants incorporate bulk articular graft tissues derived from donor joint sources in human (allograft or autograft) or non-human (xenograft) tissue. The donor joint is preferably prepared as a biological dynamic spinal implant with articular cartilage as a bearing interface between adjacent bone surfaces that naturally articulate with respect to one another.

RELATED APPLICATION

The present application claims priority to U.S. Provisional ApplicationSer. No. 60/761,540, entitled “DYNAMIC SPINAL IMPLANTS INCORPORATINGCARTILAGE BEARING GRAFT MATERIAL,” filed Jan. 24, 2006, the disclosureof which is hereby incorporated by reference.

FIELD OF THE INVENTION

The invention relates generally to methods and apparatus for thetreatment of degenerative disc disease and associated conditions. Moreparticularly, the present invention relates to the use of cartilagebearing graft material (allograft, autograft or xenograft) in dynamicdisc replacement and/or facet arthroplasty.

BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION

The spinal motion segment consists of a unit of spinal anatomy boundedby two vertebral bodies, including the two vertebral bodies, theinterposed intervertebral disc, as well as the attached ligaments,muscles, and the facet joints. The disc consists of the end plates atthe top and bottom of the vertebral bones, the soft inner core, calledthe nucleus and the annulus fibrosis running circumferentially aroundthe nucleus. In normal discs, the nucleus cushions applied loads, thusprotecting the other elements of the spinal motion segment. A normaldisc responds to compression forces by bulging outward against thevertebral end plates and the annulus fibrosis. The annulus consists ofcollagen fibers and a smaller amount of elastic fibers, both of whichare effective in resisting tension forces. However, the annulus is notvery effective in withstanding compression and shear forces.

As people age the intervertebral discs often degenerate. Thisdegeneration of the intervertebral discs may lead to degenerative discdisease. Degenerative disc disease of the spine is one of the mostcommon conditions causing pain and disability in our population. When adisc degenerates, the nucleus dehydrates. When a nucleus dehydrates, itsability to act as a cushion is reduced. Because the dehydrated nucleusis no longer able to bear loads, the loads are transferred to theannulus and to the facet joints. The annulus and facet joints are notcapable of withstanding the applied compression and torsional loads, andas such, they gradually deteriorate. As the annulus and facet jointsdeteriorate, many other effects ensue, including the narrowing of theinterspace, bony spur formation, fragmentation of the annulus, fractureand deterioration of the cartilaginous end plates, and deterioration ofthe cartilage of the facet joints. The annulus and facet joints losetheir structural stability and subtle but pathologic motions occurbetween the spinal bones.

As the annulus loses stability it tends to bow out and may develop atear allowing nuclear material to extrude. Breakdown products of thedisc and facet joint, including macroscopic chunks, microscopicparticles, and noxious biochemical substances build up. These breakdownproducts stimulate sensitive nerve endings in and around the disc,producing low back pain and sometimes, sciatica. Affected individualsexperience muscle spasms, reduced flexibility of the low back, and painwhen ordinary movements of the trunk are attempted.

Degenerative disc disease is irreversible. In some cases, the body willeventually stiffen the joints of the motion segment, effectivelyre-stabilizing the discs. Even in the cases where re-stabilizationoccurs, the process can take many years and patients often continue toexperience disabling pain. Extended painful episodes of longer thanthree months often leads patients to seek a surgical solution for theirpain.

Several surgical techniques have been devised to attempt to stabilizethe spinal motion segment. Some of these methods include: heating theannular region to destroy nerve endings and strengthen the annulus;applying rigid or semi-rigid support members on the sides of the motionsegment or within the disc space; removing and replacing the entire discwith a non-flexible, articulating artificial device; removing andreplacing the nucleus; and spinal fusion involving permanently fusingthe vertebra adjacent the affected disc.

Until recently, spinal fusion has generally been regarded as the mostwidely used treatment to alleviate back pain due to degenerative discdisease. Most spinal fusion techniques utilize some form of rigid metalstabilizing mechanism, such as the BAK spinal cage, that fixes themechanical relationship between the adjacent vertebra. Someinvestigational fusion devices similar to metal fusion cages are beingmanufactured from cortical bone. Two of these biological fusion devicesare the PLIF Spacer, for posterior lumbar interbody fusion, and the FRASpacer, for anterior lumbar interbody fusion.

While spinal fusion treatment is effective at relieving back pain, alldiscal motion is lost in the fused spinal motion segment. The loss ofmotion in the affected spinal segment necessarily limits the overallspinal mobility of the patient. Ultimately, the spinal fusion placesgreater stress on the discs adjacent the fused segment as these segmentsattempt to compensate for lack of motion in the fused segment, oftenleading to early degeneration of these adjacent spinal segments.

Current developments are focusing on treatments that can preserve someor all of the motion of the affected spinal segment. One of thesemethods to stabilize the spinal motion segment without the disadvantagesof spinal fusion is total disc replacement. Total disc replacementinvolves removing the cartilaginous end plates between the vertebralbone and the disc, large portions of the outer annulus and the completeinner nucleus. If the entire disc is removed, typically an artificialprosthesis is placed in the disc space. Many of the artificial discprosthesis currently available consist of a soft polymer to act as thenucleus. The soft polymer is interposed between two metal plates thatare anchored or attached to the vertebral endplates. Examples of theselayered total disc replacement devices are shown, for example, in U.S.Pat. Nos. 4,911,718, 5,458,643, 5,545,229 and 6,533,818, which areherein incorporated by reference.

An alternative to total disc replacement is nuclear replacement. Likethe artificial disc prosthetics, these nuclear replacements are alsoinert, somewhat flexible, non-biological prosthetics. The procedure forimplanting a nuclear replacement is less invasive than the procedure fora total disc replacement and generally includes the removal of only thenucleus and replacement of the nucleus with a prosthetic that may bemalleable and provide cushioning that mimics a natural disc nucleus.Several of this disc replacement prosthetics utilize a hydrogel materialbecause of the similarity of hydrogel to certain of the properties of anatural disc nucleus. Examples of the prosthetics used for nuclearreplacement are shown, for example, in U.S. Pat. Nos. 4,772,287,5,192,326, 5,919,235 and 6,726,721, which are herein incorporated byreference.

Although prosthetic devices have provided significant advances in thetreatment of degenerative disc disease, almost all of these prostheticdevices suffer from the challenges of being non-biological devices. Itwould be desirable to provide for devices and techniques that canadvance the treatment of degenerative disc disease without incurring theproblems inherent in implanting a non-biological device.

SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION

The present invention incorporates a dynamic spinal implant thatutilizes cartilage bearing graft material in dynamic disc replacementand/or facet arthroplasty. Methods and apparatus for dynamic spinalimplants incorporate bulk articular graft tissues derived from donorjoint sources in human (allograft or autograft) or non-human (xenograft)tissue. The donor joint is preferably prepared as a biological dynamicspinal implant with articular cartilage as a bearing interface betweenadjacent bone surfaces that naturally articulate with respect to oneanother.

In one embodiment, a generally cylindrically shaped section is takenfrom both the femoral head and acetabulum (and/or pelvis) of a donor toform the cartilage bearing graft material. Preferably, the teresligament and/or its attachments to the acetabulum and/or femur may bepreserved (and/or separated and subsequently re-fixed or re-attached tobone) to serve as a constraint feature of this embodiment to mitigate oreliminate the potential for dislocation and/or excessive translationand/or rotation of these embodiments of the present invention. Whilethis embodiment utilizes a hip joint as the donor joint, it will beunderstood that other joints may also be used in conjunction with themethods and apparatus of the present invention, including the knee, hip,ankle, vertebra, wrist, elbow or shoulder.

In another embodiment, the biological dynamic spinal implant witharticular cartilage includes a keying feature that may be generallyseated against the anterior cortex of the vertebral body or within anaperture or opening formed in the anterior cortex of the anterior corpusof the vertebral body. This keying feature preferably allows for theinclusion and additional fixation by a secondary fixation element.Preferably, the biological dynamic spinal implant is provided withtextured features on one or more of the exterior surfaces opposite thecartilage bearing bone surface for mitigation of migration, subsidence,expulsion, and/or micromotion of the implant.

In another embodiment, dynamic disc replacement and facet arthroplastyenabling correction of spondylothysthesis or other spinal pathology isaccomplished by first implanting the dynamic disc replacement in apreliminary position through a more anterior approach and thenimplanting a facet arthroplasty device through a more posteriorapproach. Second, balancing out the relative locations and orientationsof the implants is performed by way of dynamic balancing or staticbalancing of the adjacent vertebrae and adjacent soft tissue structures.Third, fixing the relative positions of the facet arthroplasty implantsand dynamic disc replacement implants attached to a single vertebrae oradjacent vertebrae is performed with respect to each other.

The present invention provides methods and apparatus for dynamic spinalimplants with a bone implant interface comprised of materials whosemodulus of elasticity closes matches that of living bone tissue and withshock absorption characteristics mimicking or approaching that of thenatural, healthy disc.

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS

Other important objects and features of the invention will be apparentfrom the following detailed description of the invention taken inconnection with the accompanying drawings in which:

FIGS. 1-16 are pictorial representations of dynamic disc systems andspinal fusion systems of the prior art.

FIGS. 17-50 show various depictions of dynamic disc and/or facetarthroplasty methods and apparatus in accordance with preferred andalternate embodiments of the present invention.

DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE PREFERRED EMBODIMENTS

The intervertebral disc constitutes a major component of the functionalspinal unit. Aging results in deterioration of the biological andmechanical integrity of the intervertebral discs. Disc degeneration mayproduce pain directly or perturb the functional spinal unit in such away as to produce a number of painful entities. Whether through director indirect pathways, intervertebral disc degeneration is a leadingcause of pain and disability in adults. Approximately 80% of Americansexperience at least a single episode of significant back pain in theirlifetime, and for many individuals, spinal disorders become a lifelongmalady. The morbidity associated with disc degeneration and its spectrumof associated spinal disorders is responsible for significant economicand social costs. The treatment of this disease entity in the UnitedStates is estimated to exceed $60 billion annually in health care costs.The indirect economic losses associated with lost wages and decreasedproductivity are staggering.

Age-related disc changes occur early and are progressive. Almost allindividuals experience diminished nuclear water content and increasedcollagen content by the time they are forty. This desiccation andfibrosis of the disc blur the nuclear/annular boundary. These senescentchanges allow repeated minor rotational trauma to producecircumferential tears between annular layers. These defects, usually inthe posterior or posterolateral portions of the annulus, may enlarge andcombine to form one or more radial tears through which nuclear materialmay herniate. Pain and dysfunction due to compression of neuralstructures by herniated disc fragments are widely recognized phenomena.It should be noted, however, that annular injuries may be responsiblefor axial pain with or without the presence of a frank disc herniation.

Progression of the degenerative process alters intradiscal pressures,causing a relative shift of axial load-bearing to the peripheral regionsof the endplates and facets. This transfer of biomechanical loadsappears to be associated with the development of both facet and ligamenthypertrophy. There is a direct relation between disc degeneration andosteophyte formation. In particular, deterioration of the intervertebraldisc leads to increased traction on the attachment of the outermostannular fibers, thereby predisposing to the growth of laterally situatedosteophytes. Disc degeneration also results in a significant shift ofthe instantaneous axis of rotation of the functional spinal unit. Theexact long-term consequences of such a perturbation of spinalbiomechanics are unknown, but it has been postulated that this changepromotes abnormal loading of adjacent segments and an alteration inspinal balance.

Nonoperative therapeutic options for individuals with neck and back paininclude rest, heat, analgesics, physical therapy, and manipulation.Unfortunately, these treatments fail in a significant number ofpatients. Current surgical management options for spinal disease includedecompressive surgery, decompression with fusion, and fusion(arthrodesis) alone.

Greater than 200,000 discectomies are performed annually in the UnitedStates. Although discectomy is exceptionally effective in promptlyrelieving significant radicular pain, the overall success rates forthese procedures range from 48% to 89%. In general, the return of painincreases with the length of time from surgery. Ten years followinglumbar discectomy, 50-60% of patients will experience significant backpain and 20-30% will suffer from recurrent sciatica. In general, thereasons for these less than optimal results are probably related tocontinued degenerative processes, recurrent disc rupture, instability,and spinal stenosis.

There are several specific reasons for failure of surgical discectomy.The actual disc herniation may not have been the primary pain generatorin some patients. A number of relapses are due to disc space collapse.Although the disc height is often decreased in the preoperative patientwith a herniated nucleus pulposus, it is an exceedingly commonoccurrence following surgical discectomy. Disc space narrowing is veryimportant in terms of decreasing the size of the neural foramina andaltering facet loading and function. Disc space narrowing increasesintra-articular pressure, and abnormal loading patterns have been shownto produce biochemical changes in the intra-articular cartilage at boththe level of the affected disc and the adjacent level. The entireprocess predisposes to the development of hypertrophic changes of thearticular processes. Disc space narrowing also allows for rostral andanterior displacement of the superior facet. This displacement of thesuperior facet becomes significant when it impinges upon the exitingnerve root which is traversing an already compromised foramen.Destabilization of the functional spinal unit is another potentialsource of continued pain. A partial disc excision is associated withsignificant increases in flexion, rotation, lateral bending, andextension across the affected segment. As the amount of nuclear materialwhich is removed increases, stiffness across the level decreasesaccordingly. Disc excision has also been demonstrated to lead toinstability at the level above the injured segment in cadaver studies.This situation has been documented to occur clinically as well.

Arthrodesis or spinal fusion, with or without decompression, is anothermeans of surgically treating symptomatic spondylosis in all regions ofthe mobile spine. Fusion has the capability of eliminating segmentalinstability, maintaining normal disc space height, preserving sagittalbalance, and halting further degeneration at the operated level.Discectomy with fusion has been the major surgical treatment forsymptomatic cervical spondylosis for over 40 years. The major rationalefor spinal arthrodesis is that pain can be relieved by eliminatingmotion across a destabilized or degenerated segment. Good to excellentresults have been reported in 52-100% of anterior lumbar interbodyfusions and 50-95% of posterior lumbar interbody fusions.

Spinal fusion is not, however, a benign procedure. In numerous patients,recurrent symptoms develop years after the original procedure. Fusionperturbs the biomechanics of adjacent levels. Hypertrophic facetarthropathy, spinal stenosis, disc degeneration, and osteophyteformation have all been reported to occur at levels adjacent to afusion, and these pathological processes are responsible for pain inmany patients. In at least one study, the long-term results of lumbarfusions have shown that roughly half of patients had lumbar painrequiring medication at last follow-up, and about 15% had been treatedwith further surgery. Finally, there are a number of other drawbacks tofusion as a treatment for spinal pain, including loss of spinalmobility, graft collapse resulting in alterations of sagittal balance,autograft harvest site pain, and the possibility of alteration ofmuscular synergy.

Instead of spinal fusion, various approaches have been proposed for anartificial or prosthetic disc. The idea of spinal disc replacement isnot new. One of the first attempts to perform disc arthroplasty wasundertaken by Nachemson 40 years ago. Fernstrom attempted to reconstructintervertebral discs by implanting stainless steel balls in the discspace. These pioneering efforts were followed by more than a decade ofresearch on the degenerative processes of the spine, spinalbiomechanics, and biomaterials before serious efforts to produce aprosthetic disc resumed.

There are a number of factors that must be considered in the design andimplantation of effective disc prostheses. The device must maintain theproper intervertebral spacing, allow for motion, and provide stability.Natural discs also act as shock absorbers, and this may be an importantquality to incorporate into replacement disc design, particularly whenconsidered for multilevel lumbar reconstruction. The replacement discmust not shift significant axial load to the facets. Placement of thereplacement disc must be done in such a way as to avoid the destructionof important spinal elements such as the facets and ligaments. Theimportance of these structures cannot be overemphasized. Facets not onlycontribute strength and stability to the spine, but they could be asource of pain. This may be especially important to determine prior todisc arthroplasty because it is currently believed that disc replacementwill probably be ineffective as a treatment for facet pain. Excessiveligamentous laxity may adversely affect disc replacement outcome bypredisposing to implant migration or spinal instability.

A replacement disc must exhibit tremendous endurance. The average age ofa patient needing a lumbar disc replacement has been estimated to be 35years. This means that to avoid the need for revision surgery, thereplacement disc must last 50 years. It has been estimated that anindividual will take 2 million strides per year and perform 125,000significant bends; therefore, over the 50-year life expectancy of theartificial disc, there would be over 106 million cycles. This estimatediscounts the subtle disc motion which may occur with the 6 millionbreaths taken per year. A number of factors in addition to endurancemust be considered when choosing the materials with which to constructan intervertebral disc prosthesis. The materials must be biocompatibleand display no corrosion. They must not incite any significantinflammatory response. The fatigue strength must be high and the weardebris minimal. Finally, it would be ideal if the implant were imaging“friendly.”

All currently proposed intervertebral disc prostheses are containedwithin the disc space; therefore, allowance must be made for variationsin patient size, level, and height. There may be a need forinstrumentation to restore collapsed disc space height prior toplacement of the prosthesis. The intervertebral disc replacement ideallywould replicate normal range of motion in all planes. At the same timeit must constrain motion. A disc replacement must reproduce physiologicstiffness in all planes of motion plus axial compression. Furthermore,it must accurately transmit physiologic stress. For example, if theglobal stiffness of a device is physiologic but a significantnon-physiologic mismatch is present at the bone-implant interface, theremay be bone resorption, abnormal bone deposition (likely leading toosteophyte overgrowth, impingement of the spinal cord and subsequentstenosis), and endplate or implant failure.

The disc replacement preferably must have immediate and long-termfixation to bone. Immediate fixation may be accomplished with screws,staples, or “teeth” which are integral to the implant. While thesetechniques may offer long-term stability, other options include porousor macrotexture surfaces which allow for bone ingrowth. Regardless ofhow fixation is achieved, there must also be the capability forrevision. Finally, the implant must be designed and constructed suchthat failure of any individual component will not result in acatastrophic event. Furthermore, neural, vascular, and spinal structuresmust be protected and spinal stability maintained in the event of anaccident or unexpected loading.

Existing prosthetic discs have been constructed based on the utilizationof one of the following primary properties: hydraulic, elastic,mechanical, and composite.

PDN Prosthetic Disc Nucleus—Hydrogel disc replacements primarily havehydraulic properties. Hydrogel prostheses are used to replace thenucleus while retaining the annulus fibrosis. One potential advantage isthat such a prosthesis may have the capability of percutaneousplacement. The PDN implant is a nucleus replacement which consists of ahydrogel core constrained in a woven polyethylene jacket (Raymedica,Inc., Bloomington, Minn.) (FIG. 1). The pellet-shaped hydrogel core iscompressed and dehydrated to minimize its size prior to placement. Uponimplantation, the hydrogel immediately begins to absorb fluid andexpand. The tightly woven ultrahigh molecular weight polyethylene allowsfluid to pass through to the hydrogel. This flexible but inelasticjacket permits the hydrogel core to deform and reform in response tochanges in compressive forces yet constrains horizontal and verticalexpansion upon hydration. Although most hydration takes place in thefirst 24 hours after implant, it takes approximately 4-5 days for thehydrogel to reach maximum expansion. Placement of two PDN implantswithin the disc space provides the lift that is necessary to restore andmaintain disc space height. This device has been extensively assessedwith mechanical and in vitro testing, and the results have been good.Schönmayr et al. reported on 10 patients treated with the PDN with aminimum of 2 years follow-up. Significant improvement was seen in boththe Prolo and Oswestry scores, and segmental motion was preserved.Overall, 8 patients were considered to have an excellent result.Migration of the implant was noted in 3 patients, but only 1 requiredreoperation. One patient, a professional golfer, responded favorably for4 months until his pain returned. He had marked degeneration of hisfacets, and his pain was relieved by facet injections. He underwent afusion procedure and since has done well. The devices have beenprimarily inserted via a posterior route. Bertagnoli recently reportedplacing the PDN via an anterolateral transpsoatic route. The PDN isundergoing clinical evaluation in Europe, South Africa, and the UnitedStates.

Acroflex Disc—Two elastic type disc prostheses are the Acroflexprosthesis proposed by Steffee and the thermoplastic composite of Lee.The first Acroflex disc consisted of a hexene-based polyolefin rubbercore vulcanized to two titanium endplates. The endplates had 7 mm postsfor immediate fixation and were coated with sintered 250 micron titaniumbeads on each surface to provide an increased surface area for bonyingrowth and adhesion of the rubber. The disc was manufactured inseveral sizes and underwent extensive fatigue testing prior toimplantation. Only 6 patients were implanted before the clinical trialwas stopped due to a report that 2-mercaptobenzothiazole, a chemicalused in the vulcanization process of the rubber core, was possiblycarcinogenic in rats. The 6 patients were evaluated after a minimum of 3years, at which time the results were graded as follows: 2 excellent, 1good, 1 fair, and 2 poor. One of the prostheses in a patient with a poorresult developed a tear in the rubber at the junction of vulcanization.The second generation Acroflex-100 consists of an HP-100 siliconeelastomer core bonded to two titanium endplates (DePuy Acromed, Raynham,Mass.) (FIG. 2).

Articulating Discs—Several articulating pivot or ball type discprostheses have been developed for the lumbar spine. Hedman and Kostuikdeveloped a set of cobalt-Chromium-molybdenum alloy hinged plates withan interposed spring. These devices have been tested in sheep. At 3 and6 months post-implantation there was no inflammatory reaction noted andnone of the prostheses migrated. Two of the three 6-month implants hadsignificant bony ingrowth. It is not clear whether motion was preservedacross the operated segments. Dr. Thierry Marnay of France developed anarticulating disc prosthesis with a polyethylene core (Aesculap AG & Co.KG., Tuttlingen, Germany). The metal endplates have two vertical wingsand the surfaces which contact the endplates are plasma-sprayed withtitanium. Good to excellent results were reported in the majority ofpatients receiving this implant.

Link SB Charité Disc—The most widely implanted disc to date is the LinkSB Charité disc (Waldemar Link GmbH & Co, Hamburg, Germany). The CharitéIII consists of a biconvex ultra high molecular weight polyethylene(UHMWPE) spacer. There is a radiopaque ring around the spacer for x-raylocalization. The spacers are available in different sizes. This corespacer interfaces with two separate endplates. The endplates are made ofcasted cobalt-chromium-molybdenum alloy, each with three ventral anddorsal teeth. The endplates are coated with titanium and hydroxyapatiteto promote bone bonding (FIG. 3).

Although there is great concern regarding wear debris in hip prosthesesin which woven ultrahigh molecular weight polyethylene articulates withmetal, this does not appear to occur in the Charité III. This prosthesishas been implanted in over a thousand European patients with relativelygood results. In 1994 Griffith et al. reported the results in 93patients with 1-year follow-up. Significant improvements in pain,walking distance, and mobility were noted. 6.5% of patients experienceda device failure, dislocation, or migration. There were 3 ringdeformations, and 3 patients required reoperation. Lemaire et al.described the results of implantation of the SB Charité III disc in 105patients with a mean of 51 months of follow-up. There was nodisplacement of any of the implants, but 3 settled. The failures werefelt to be secondary to facet pain. David described a cohort of 85patients reviewed after a minimum of at least 5 years post-implantationof the Charité prosthesis. 97% of the patients were available forfollow-up. 68% had good or better results. 14 patients reported theresult as poor. Eleven of these patients underwent secondary arthrodesisat the prosthesis level. Clinical trials using the Charité IIIprosthesis are ongoing in Europe, the United States, Argentina, China,Korea, and Australia.

The Bristol Disc—There have been several reports on results from acervical disc prosthesis that was originally developed in Bristol,England. This device was designed by Cummins. The original design hasbeen modified. The second generation of the Cummins disc is a ball andsocket type device constructed of stainless steel. It is secured to thevertebral bodies with screws. Cummins et al. described 20 patients whowere followed for an average of 2.4 years. Patients with radiculopathyimproved, and those with myelopathy either improved or were stabilized.Of this group, only 3 experienced continued axial pain. Two screwsbroke, and there were two partial screw back-outs. These did not requireremoval of the implant. One joint was removed because it was “loose.”The failure was due to a manufacturing error. At the time of removal,the joint was firmly imbedded in the bone and was covered by a smoothscar anteriorly. Detailed examination revealed that the ball and socketfit was asymmetric. It is important to note that the surrounding tissuesdid not contain any significant wear debris. Joint motion was preservedin all but 2 patients (FIGS. 4, 9, and 10). Both of these patients hadimplants at the C6-7 level which were so large that the facets werecompletely separated. This size mismatch was felt to be the reasonmotion was not maintained. Subsidence did not occur. This discprosthesis is currently being evaluated in additional clinical studiesin Europe and Australia.

Bryan Cervical Disc Prosthesis—The Bryan Cervical Disc System (SpinalDynamics Corporation, Seattle) is designed based on a proprietary, lowfriction, wear resistant, elastic nucleus. This nucleus is locatedbetween and articulates with anatomically shaped titanium plates(shells) that are fitted to the vertebral body endplates (FIGS. 5 and6). The shells are covered with a rough porous coating. A flexiblemembrane that surrounds the articulation forms a sealed space containinga lubricant to reduce friction and prevent migration of any wear debristhat may be generated. It also serves to prevent the intrusion ofconnective tissue. The implant allows for normal range of motion inflexion/extension, lateral bending, axial rotation, and translation. Theimplant is manufactured in five sizes ranging from 14 mm to 18 mm indiameter. The initial clinical experience with the Bryan Total CervicalDisc Prosthesis has been promising. 52 devices were implanted in 51patients by 8 surgeons in 6 centers in Belgium, France, Sweden, Germany,and Italy. There were no serious operative or postoperativecomplications. Twenty-six of the patients have been followed for 6months, and complete clinical and radiographic data is available on 23patients. 92% of the patients were classified as excellent or goodoutcomes at last follow-up. Flexion/extension motion was preserved inall patients, and there was no significant subsidence or migration ofthe devices. FIGS. 7 and 8 demonstrate the endplate preparationtechnique used to prepare the spine to receive the Bryan Cervical DiscImplant. This technique and others for endplate preparation are hereinincluded by reference in their entirety and are to be relied upon assupport in this specification for claims.

Interbody Fusion with Allograft—Two newly developed biological cageshave been developed for posterior lumbar interbody fusion and anteriorinterbody fusion: the FRA Spacer (FIGS. 11, 12, and 13) and the PLIFSpacer (not shown) that are used for anterior lumbar interbody fusionand posterior lumbar interbody fusion, respectively. It should be notedthat FIG. 13 shows a series of FRAs placed in multiple levels with bothposterior and anterior instrumentation.

One of the early supporters and leading figures in posterior lumbarinterbody fusion using bone grafts was Ralph Cloward. Cloward'sinnovative ideas contributed to the rectangular bone grafts and certaininstruments used even today to insert bone grafts. Over the years, manyvariations of the posterior lumbar interbody fusion have been inventedto facilitate the fusion process while maintaining stability to thespine. Capener first described anterior lumbar interbody fusions forspondylolisthesis in 1932. The year 1933 represented a pivotal year foranterior interbody fusion when Burns inserted an autologous tibial peganteriorly into the L5-S1 intervertebral space. Today, spinal fusion canbe accomplished by various techniques such as posterior procedures withand without internal fixation, anterior procedures with and withoutinternal fixation, combined anterior and posterior column procedureswhich may include a posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) or anteriorlumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) for anterior column support.

During the last decade, an increasing number of studies have lookedtoward the morphology, physiology, biomechanics, and immunology of thevarious components of the spine. Today, there are several optionsavailable to spinal surgeons for correcting spinal instabilities toregain physiological anterior column support. Among these are autograft,allograft, synthetics and metallic fusion cages. Fresh autologouscancellous bone is considered the best choice for osseous reconstructionbecause of its optimal biologic behavior and histocompatibility.However, autologous bone has inadequate initial mechanical strength forinterbody loading and may collapse and/or extrude. Significant morbidityis also associated with anterior structural graft harvesting of theilium and may result in infection, chronic pain, incisional hernias,vascular injuries, neurologic injuries and iliac wing fracture. The useof allograft is a safe, simple and inexpensive method of harvestingbone. Total operative time and blood loss can be reduced, and possiblecomplications associated with the donor site can be avoided. Throughcontinued clinical research devices are being manufactured from corticalbone, similar to metal fusion cages, providing built-in lordosis andend-plate gripping “teeth” for additional stability. Two of thesebiological devices are the PLIF Spacer, for posterior lumbar interbodyfusion, and the FRA Spacer, for anterior lumbar interbody fusion.

Even when subjected under an axial load of 8,000N, the spine is capableof moving in flexion, extension, and rotation. In order to maintainstability under demanding conditions, the spine is dependent upon thearticulating processes of the intervertebral and the facet joints.Similar to the cervical spine, the lumbar spine has a lordotic curvaturethat is essential to its function. Because of its location and shape,the lumbar spine often fails under axial compression. For these reasons,a successful biological cage needs to address both the lordosis of thelumbar spine while providing stability to the spine.

The anterior column of the spine absorbs 80% of an axial compressiveforce while the posterior structures absorb the remaining 20%. A studyby Brown and colleagues of motion segments of the lumbar region withstatic compressive loads indicated that the first component to fail wasthe vertebral body. This occurred as a result of the fracturedend-plates. These findings suggest that the vertebral body's strength isdependent on intact end-plates. FIGS. 14 and 15 are included herein togenerally illustrate the morphological changes induced by deteriorationof the disc. FIG. 14 is a plastic model showing “plump and healthy”discs and vertebral bodies in their “natural and healthy” state (thecenter points and arrow shown demonstrate the change that occurs in thecenter of rotation of adjacent vertebrae with respect to each other asthe disc and facets degenerate from their healthy state to a degeneratedstate, respectively). FIG. 15 is a radiograph of a completely collapseddisc space showing the changes in shape undergone by the vertebralbodies, the formation of osteophyte overgrowth in response to excessivebone on bone contact between the vertebral bodies (indicated by thehorizontally oriented bracket), and the impingement of the vertebralbodies upon the spinal cord (the arrow indicating the impingement site)leading to a relatively classic case of stenosis.

The facet joints and the pars interarticularis control the movement ofthe posterior elements of the spine. According to Nachemsom, the facetscarry about 18% of the total compressive load of a motioned segment.When the body is in flexion, the facet serves to provide stability tothe spine. Farfan and Sullivan established a correlation between facetjoints asymmetry and the level of disc pathology. An ideal implant mustbe capable of withstanding the axial compressive force of the body. Inaddition, it must be able to displace the compressive force withoutinducing a great deal of motion in the adjacent segment while alsopromoting arthrodesis. The quality of the bone graft both biologicallyand as a load-bearing device is essential in achieving a solid fusion.Biological cages have been recently developed to address the criteriafor both anterior and posterior interbody fusion.

Tests had been conducted by third parties on the PLIF and FRA Spacers toensure that they could withstand the loads in the lumbar spine. Theultimate compressive strength of a vertebral body is 8000 N. Testresults show that the PLIF and FRA Spacers have a compressive strengthover 25,000 N. A successful interbody fusion will restore everymechanical function of the functional spinal unit except motion. Thebone graft must bear substantially all of the body's weight above thefusion level(s) while it is being incorporated. The goal for any spinalfusion is to maintain the correction, avoid hardware or graft failureand obtain a solid fusion.

In addition to compressive strength, resistance to implant expulsion isa major factor in the design of intervertebral spacers. The PLIF Spaceris designed with saw-tooth-shaped teeth to increase resistance topullout. Pullout testing was conducted to ensure that the spacer wasable to resist expulsion. The maximum shear force that a human disc canwithstand is about 150N. An axial preload (450 N) and a shear load wereapplied to the implant to determine the pullout strength. Test resultsshow that the PLIF Spacer has a pullout strength of (1053 N±80 N), morethan three times the pullout strength of a comparable design withoutteeth (234 N±38 N). Testing was conducted on the FRA Spacer to ensurethat it was capable of resisting expulsion at clinically relevant loads.The resistance of the implant to being expelled from the disc space wasdetermined by pushout testing. A clinically relevant load (450N) andside load was applied to the implant to determine the pushout strength.Pyramid shaped teeth are machined on the upper and lower surfaces of theimplant to increase resistance to pushout. Test results show that theFRA Spacer has a pushout strength (1236N±132N) three times the pushoutstrength of a comparable femoral wedge (405N±65N).

In the past 40 years spine instrumentation and techniques have increaseddramatically. Accompanying the rise is the demand for bone allograft. Inmany aspects, bone autograft is more advantageous than allografts;however, the clinical demand for bone allograft in limb salvage,fractures, and joint replacements necessitate its use. In order tounderstand how allografts are utilized, one must examine the biology andthe screening process of allografts. An inflammatory process occurswithin hours after the graft has been implanted. There are fiveprocesses involved in the incorporation of the graft. The first stage ofthe graft is the inflammatory process, which is followed byrevascularization, osteogenesis, remodeling, and finally mechanicalstability. During the inflammatory stage the body's defenses elicit animmune response causing inflammatory cells such as neutrophils andfibroblasts to invade the graft. Rejection of the graft often occursduring revascularization where the host is highly sensitive to thegraft's antigen. During revascularization, possible complications mayoccur, including graft necrosis and occlusion of the host vessels.Osteogenesis refers to the synthesis of new bone by the host and beginsshortly after the immediate postoperative period. This process involvesthe mesenchymal cells proliferating, and eventually differentiating intochondrocytes and later into osteoblasts. Osteoconduction refers to thegraft's ability to induce osteogenesis, which can persist for severalmonths following surgery. Remodeling and mechanical stability follows,producing a functional and efficient graft. Because allografts arecapable of eliciting a more aggressive immune response, freeze drying,cryopreservation, and other preservation techniques are used to delaythe inflammatory and revascularization process.

The PLIF and FRA Spacers are harvested and processed by themusculoskeletal transplant foundation (MTF) which is a nationalconsortium of medical schools, academic institutions and recoveryorganizations involved in the aseptic recovery, processing anddistribution of bone and related soft tissue for use in transplantsurgery. Its quality and safety standards consistently meet or exceedthe requirements of the American Association of Tissue Banks (AATB) andthe guidelines for screening and testing of tissue donors set forth bythe FDA. MTF is AATB accredited and uses the most complete andtechnically advanced testing available to assure the safety of itsallografts. MTF was the first tissue bank to utilize HIV DNA byPolymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) testing on every donor. In independenttesting, PCR has been found to be 99.6% sensitive and 99.9% specific.MTF continues to require this testing in its routine screening ofdonors. Since its inception, MTF has recovered and processed over 15,000donors. It has distributed more than 700,000 tissues without a confirmeddisease transmission, including HIV.

To maintain biological integrity, MTF processes all tissue by usingaseptic techniques in class 10 (certified) clean rooms. This eliminatesthe need for terminal sterilization by high-dose gamma irradiation orethylene oxide gas, which have been shown to compromise the biologicaland biomechanical integrity of allograft tissue. All tissue undergoes atotal of 27 separate quality assurance checks prior to release. Alltissue is computer tracked from recovery through testing, processing,packaging and distribution. The age criteria for donors are 15-60 formales and 15-55 for females. This allows the selection of tissue withdenser construction. All potential donors must pass through acomprehensive quality assurance process. Screening begins at the site ofrecovery, with a comprehensive medical and social history that includesthe cause of death. Tissue and blood samples are tested for infectiousdiseases that include hepatitis, HIV, and syphilis. The MTF's testingrequirements exceed current AATB and FDA guidelines. A team ofmedical/technical specialists from the infectious disease and tissuebanking fields evaluates all information, including test results. ThePLIF and FRA Spacers are preserved between −40° C. and −90° C. untiltime of shipping, and are shipped on dry ice. The grafts are stored in a−40° C. to −90° C. freezer until the time of surgery.

A successful posterior lumbar interbody fusion using a biological disccage restores the disc height, opens the neural foramen, stabilizes thespinal segment, and provides anterior column support. Distracting thesegment in a posterior lumbar interbody fusion is essential to theprosperity of the surgery. There are two major surgical techniques thatmay be used to distract, size, and insert the PLIF Spacer; distractionwith the PLIF Distractor and distraction with the PLIF Trial Spacer. Thesurgical technique used depends upon the patient's local anatomy, thepathology, and the surgeon's preference. The PLIF Distractor distractsthe vertebrae to ensure maximum implant height and neural foraminaldecompression. The PLIF Distractor distracts on one side while the PLIFSpacer is inserted on the contralateral side. The PLIF Trial Spacerensures accurate sizing of the PLIF Spacer. There are 5 sizes rangingfrom 9-17 mm, in 2 mm increments, which correspond to implant geometry.The Quick Release T-Handle is an accessory designed for use with thePLIF Trial Spacer. The PLIF Trial Spacer distracts on one side while thePLIF Spacer is inserted on the contralateral side.

Once the site has been prepared for device insertion the PLIF Distractorblades are placed into the disc space lateral to the dura. The curve onthe neck of the distractor should be oriented toward the midline. Thedistractor blades are inserted completely into the disc space so thatthe ridges at the end of the blades rest on the vertebral body.Fluoroscopy can assist in confirming that the distractor blades areparallel to the endplates. Correct placement will angle the handles ofthe distractor cranially, particularly at L5-S1. An appropriately sizedPLIF Trial Spacer is connected to the Quick Release T-Handle andinserted into the contralateral disc space with gentle impaction.Fluoroscopy and tactile judgment can assist in confirming the fit of thetrial spacer. If the trial spacer is too loose or too tight, the nextlarger or smaller size is used until a secure fit is achieved. Theimplant is selected according to the correct trial spacer. The trialspacer can then be removed. The selected implant is held using the PLIFImplant Holder within the slots of the implant. The biological implantis introduced, in the correct orientation, into the contralateral discspace. Slight impaction is often necessary using the PLIF Impactor. Theimplant holder is removed once the desired position is achieved.Autogenous cancellous bone or a bone substitute is also placed in theanterior and medial aspect of the vertebral disc space prior toplacement of the second implant. It is desired to recess the implants2-4 mm beyond the posterior rim of the vertebral body.

For surgical technique utilizing the PLIF Trial Spacer, it is necessaryto begin with the trial spacer determined during preoperative planning.The trial spacer is inserted with the contoured sides facinginferior-superior into the disc space. The trial spacer may also beinserted horizontally and turned vertically to size and distract thedisc space. Slight impaction may be necessary. Fluoroscopy and tactilejudgment can assist in confirming the fit of the trial spacer. If thetrial spacer is too loose or too tight, the next larger or smaller sizeis used until a secure fit is achieved. The implant corresponding to thecorrect trial spacer is chosen. The implant is then introduced, in thecorrect orientation, into the contralateral disc space. Slight impactionmay be necessary. The trial spacer is removed and the second implant, ofthe same height, is inserted into the space using gentle impaction. Itis suggested to recess the implant 2-4 mm beyond the posterior rim ofthe vertebral body. Additional posterior instrumentation can beperformed to enhance the fusion rate and decrease the risk of anteriorcolumn allograft migration.

The FRA Spacer Instruments are designed for use with this “biologicalcage” for a straight anterior or anterolateral approach. Thepreoperative planner is designed as an aid in determining the anteriorheight, posterior height, depth and lordosis. This is performed bycomparing the lateral view on the radiographic planner with the adjacentintervertebral discs on a lateral radiograph. The implant should befirmly seated with a tight fit between the end-plates where the segmentis fully distracted.

The midline of the intervertebral disc is exposed and the disc isevacuated with removal of the superficial layers of the cartilaginousend-plates to expose bleeding bone. Adequate preparation of theendplates is essential to facilitate vascular supply to the biologicalcage. Distraction is performed for the segment to restore disc height,open the neural foramen, and stabilize the biological cage. Thedistractor blades are inserted into the disc space. Once the desireddistraction is achieved the implant size is determined utilizing aseries of trial spacers. The implant corresponding to the correct trialspacer is then prepared. The biological cage is packed with bone graftmaterial and inserted in an anterior posterior direction with contact ofthe adjacent end-plates and restoration of lordosis.

For anterolateral insertion, the center of the implant and thedistractor will sit 30° offset from the anterior vertebral midline. Thisapproach is commonly used at the L2-L5 vertebral segments. The anteriorlongitudinal ligament need not be resected during the anterolateralapproach. The disc is evacuated and the end-plates prepared similar tothe direct anterior approach. The trial size and biological cage areinserted at a 30° offset from the direct anterior approach whichrequires less soft tissue dissection and less mobilization of thevascular midline structures. It is recommended that additional bonegraft material be inserted into the hole of the biological implant andcircumferentially in contact with the end-plates.

One hundred and twenty three biological cages were utilized for anteriorreconstruction in 90 patients from March 1998-July 1999. 48 patientswere male and 42 female with an average age of 43 (19-72). The mostcommon preoperative diagnosis included internal disc disruption withdisc resorbtive syndrome (51 patients), instability/spondylolisthesis(28 patients), recurrent disc herniation with instability (12 patients),degenerative scoliosis (7 patients), and vertebral osteomyletis (2patients). The majority of patients' (59) received 1 biological FRASpacer while 29 patients were managed with 2-level biological cages, andonly 2 patients received 3-level implants. The majority of patient's(35) were managed with additional posterior segmental pedicular screwfixation. Anterior “stand alone” biological cages were utilized in 30patients and additional posterior translaminar screw fixation wasutilized in 25 patients. This is an early clinical experience ofutilizing this biological implant for anterior column reconstruction.The longest follow-up in this series of patients is 17 months with anaverage follow-up of 8 months. Up to this time, there has been noevidence of graft migration, infection or subsidence. Two patients thatwere managed solely with an anterior approach have required additionalposterior surgery for suspected pseudoarthrosis. Only one patient thathad been managed with an anterior column reconstruction and posteriortranslaminar screw fixation required additional surgery. None of the 35patients that were treated with additional posterior segmentalinstrumentation required further surgery. Fracture of the FRA Spacer wasnoted, upon insertion, in 3 patients that required removal of thefractured biological cage and replacement at the time of the initialsurgical procedure.

The PLIF Spacer has been utilized for approximately 6 months (beginningJanuary 1999). 10 patients received implantation of this biologicalcage. Twenty-four implants were utilized in 3 males and 7 females. Allpatients were treated with additional posterior segmentalinstrumentation to include either translaminar screw fixation (3patients) or posterior segmental pedicular screw fixation (7 patients).The indications for surgical implantation of these 10 patients includedrecurrent disc herniation (5 patients), spondylolisthesis withoutforaminal stenosis and instability (5 patients). Early clinicalexperience with this device is promising without evidence of migration,dislodgment, infection, pseudoarthrosis or iatrogenic instability.

The FRA Spacer is a wedge shaped femoral ring designed for both directanterior and anterolateral insertion. The insertion can be performedwith simultaneous distraction. Migration is decreased with the pyramidalteeth on both surfaces. The PLIF Spacer is a contoured, wedge shapedallograft that can be inserted with a minimally invasive foraminotomy.The five sizes permit preservation of the facets and minimal nerve rootretraction. The design allows distraction and insertion with thesaw-tooth pattern surface.

The FRA and PLIF biological cages have been designed along with a set ofinstruments that allow the surgeon to perform these surgeries with aminimally invasive approach. Both of these implants (for both ananterior and posterior approach) facilitate the preservation of thevertebral end-plates and allow anatomical restoration of the sagittalalignment to provide the best “biologic” environment to obtain a stableintervertebral segment and a subsequent arthrodesis. The PLIF Spacer andFRA Spacer are designed by and available through Synthes-Stratec Spine.FIG. 16 shows additional prior art devices for intervertebral fusionfamiliar to those familiar with the art.

Various embodiments of the present invention will now be described.FIGS. 17, 18, and 19 show various depictions of the human hip joint.FIG. 19 is a view of the human hip joint obtained by opening the floorof the acetabulum from within the pelvis revealing the cartilage bearingsurfaces of the femoral head, the teres ligament (labeled LIGT TERES),and other anatomic structures of the pelvis and hip joint. The thicknessof cartilage on the femoral head is known to range between 3 mm to 6 mmand the thickness of cartilage on the acetabulum is also known to rangegenerally between 3 mm to 6 mm. The human hip joint exhibits fascinatingmicro- and macro-scopic behavior, the recognition of which inspired theembodiments of the present invention. First, the hip joint articulatespolyaxially (3 degrees of rotational freedom about 3 mutuallyperpendicular axes) while simultaneously allowing, in a constrained andshock-absorbing manner, translation along the same 3 mutuallyperpendicular axes due to the viscoelastic properties of the cartilageintegrally formed between adjacent bone surfaces. Furthermore, thecartilaginous material possesses profound shock absorbing capabilitiesas is well understood in the scientific literature regarding thekinematics and physiological performance of human joints. Furthermore,the bone material underlying the respective cartilage surfaces of theadjacent joints is an extraordinarily complex composite structure“biologically optimized” to handle the physiological loading of thejoint with minimal degradation of performance over time in the absenceof mechanical or physiological disease processes to the contrary. Simplyput, the hip joint, or other articular joints of the human body, mayprovide the basic “pre-production materials” for a far more “optimizeddisc replacement design” than mankind is capable of generating bycommercial or artificial means. The use of the hip joint as the basis ofthe majority of the figures herein is illustrative only. As noted inregard to FIGS. 47 and 48, any cartilage and/or disc bearing joint inthe human body (including the spine itself) serving as the basis for anallograft dynamic disc replacement product is within the scope of theembodiments of the present invention.

FIGS. 20 and 21 shows a generally cylindrical section taken from boththe femoral head and acetabulum (and/or pelvis) to form an acetabularplug, and femoral head platform as noted in FIGS. 20 and 21. Thissection may be obtained by machining tools such as chisels, saws,punches, WirePlasty, PinPlasty, Profile Based Resection, UltrasonicCutters, and/or coring saws (similar to the “hollow drills” used to cutcylindrical holes in a door to accept a door knob). It should be notedthat the naturally occurring cartilage found between these bones ispreserved in their generally natural states to facilitate the articularand physiological processes upon which the embodiments of the presentinvention rely. Furthermore, the teres ligament (not shown in figuressubsequent to FIG. 19 for the sake of clarity), and/or its attachmentsto the acetabulum and/or femur may be preserved (and/or separated andsubsequently re-fixed or re-attached to bone) to serve as a constraintfeature of the embodiments of the present invention to mitigate oreliminate the potential for dislocation and/or excessive translationand/or rotation of the embodiments of the present invention in a mannersomewhat similar to the function of the teres ligament in the human hipwhich limits adduction and/or rotational degrees of freedom potentiallyharmful to the human body. The provision of a constraint feature may beunderstood by laymen to be analogous to an RPM, torque, speed, or powerlimiter as is known in the engine industry—i.e.; going fast oraccelerating quickly are good performance characteristics, but if thecar/dynamic disc explodes or flips over or has pistons shooting throughthe hood, it is fair to consider the event a “very bad thing”.

Having obtained the articular sections from a human of xenograft donorand/or synthetically derived source, the sections will then generally bedelivered to a tissue processing facility, such as MusculoskeletalTransplant Foundation, where additional machining, osteobiologic,disease testing, thermal, and packaging processes will be performed toensure the performance of the dynamic disc and/or facet arthroplastydevices. FIG. 22 shows a simplistic cross-sectional drawing of anembodiment of the present invention wherein the articular cartilage ofthe donor hip is not shown, but rather the location for which isgenerally indicated by the label ‘cartilage space’, for the sake ofclarity. The generally serrated, or ‘saw tooth’ profile surfaces shownon the acetabular plug and femoral head platform are machined featuresimplemented in this and other embodiments of the present invention tominimized micromotion, motion, and/or migration of the implant surfacesto facilitate short and long term fixation and/or incorporation of thedevice with and/or to the living patient bone tissue. FIG. 23 shows thisembodiment of the present invention having been surgically implantedbetween the resected endplate surfaces of adjacent vertebral bodies inmanner similar to the FRA apparatus and methods described above (FIGS. 6through 16 in general, FIGS. 6, 9, 10 and 12 in particular). One ofordinary skill in the art will recognize the anatomic features of thespine and their relative locations with respect to the device of thisembodiment of the present invention.

Augmented Implant Fixation Embodiments—In most patients requiringintervertebral surgical intervention, the simplistic embodiment of thepresent invention shown in FIGS. 22 & 23 will perform excellently whilerelying on existing surgical techniques and surgical instrumentation toimplant the dynamic spinal implant of the present invention. However,there are many pathologies that require more robust fixation and/orintervention to address the progress of the disease or the extent of thetraumatic event leading to surgery. These include osteoporosis, cronesdisease, vertebral body compression fracture, and a host of othercauses. To extend the range of indications for the dynamic spinalimplant of the present invention, certain of the following alternateembodiments are eminently suitable.

Another embodiment of the present invention is shown in FIGS. 24-26 and34-40. This embodiment of the present invention includes keying feature11 noted in FIGS. 24, 25, and 26 in an anterior only or posterior onlyembodiment generally which may be seated against the anterior cortex ofthe vertebral body or within an aperture or opening formed in theanterior cortex of the anterior corpus of the vertebral body. Thiskeying feature allows for the inclusion and additional fixation bysecondary fixation element 40 shown in FIGS. 29 through 34, which may begenerally described as a bone screw, or in another embodiment, acannulated, fenestrated cortical allograft bone screw, which will befurther described later herein. Other features of this embodiment of thepresent invention include textured surface 10, footprint 13, cartilagebearing bone surface 14, and secondary fixation element 12 (alsodescribed herein as bone screw aperture 12). Textured surface 10 in FIG.24 is similar to the textured surface 10P on Synthes Femoral RingAllograft ALIF device shown in FIGS. 11 and 12 for mitigation ofmigration, subsidence, expulsion, and/or micromotion. Cartilage bearingbone surface 14 is the naturally occurring bone surface supportingcartilage 15 as shown in FIG. 26. It should be noted that the transitionfrom bone to cartilage is not nearly as ‘cleanly’ defined as thedemarcation between the two would lead one to believe. In fact, thetransition is highly variegated and microscopically gradual.Histologists wrestle to define the exact description of thesetransitional tissues, a discussion which is best left beyond the scopeof this patent application for sake of brevity.

Embodiments of the present invention including keying features orabutment features which contact the anterior, or anterolateral faces ofthe corpus and extend anteriorly or anterolaterally therefrom areeminently feasible, as demonstrated by the clinical performance of boththe Bristol and Bryan devices shown in FIGS. 4, 9, 10 and FIGS. 5-8,respectively, which rely at least partially on such features forfixation to living bone. It is strongly recommended that intervertebral,and in fact any spinal implant whether it be anterior column orposterior column based, be essentially “foot print neutral” to avoid thepotential irritation or damage to soft tissues surrounding andsupporting the physiological functions of tissues surrounding the spinalcolumn. The term “foot print” is used herein to describe the profile ofthe implants of the present invention with respect to the geometry orprofile of the periphery of the endplates of the cervical, thoracic,lumbar, and/or sacral vertebra (as viewed from a generally superior to agenerally inferior direction, or more generally from a generally upperto a generally lower direction or a generally lower to an generallyupper direction) as generally indicated by cylindrical foot printprofile 13 shown in FIG. 24, or modified cylindrical foot print profile23 or anatomic foot print profile 93 both of which are shown in FIG. 25.

One of the things of particular interest to note is that differentvertebrae have different endplate profiles clearly calling forvariations in the implant's foot print profile and one of ordinary skillin the art will easily recognize viable variations to the foot printprofile(s) shown herein and all such variations thereof and their impacton implant geometry. All such variations are to be considered within thescope of the present invention. It will be apparent that rubbing upagainst the aorta is rarely a good thing no matter how smoothly finishedan implant may be. Preferably, the implant of the present invention ispositioned entirely within the endplate space and is therefore generallyless likely to bring the device into damaging contact with blood vesselsor nervous structures than a device which is already in contact withthem before a catastrophic event. In the spine, a couple of millimeters(mm) can quite literally mean the difference between life or death in a“fender bender”, much less a high impact vehicular event, and providingan implant which buys the patient as much leeway and/or chance ofsurvival as possible under extreme circumstances/the event ofpost-operative trauma is certainly an object to be pursued.

As shown in FIG. 24, the keying feature 11 noted in FIGS. 24-26 ispreferably seated in a recess in the vertebral body prepared by anappropriate surgical cutting tool. Although the keying feature 11 couldbe used independently of secondary fixation elements or bone screws 40,the use of bone screw aperture 12 in FIGS. 24 and 26 enabling insertionof and mechanical fixation to bone screws 40 to both the implant and thevertebral body to affect robust fixation and stabilization of theresulting construct.

FIGS. 27 and 28 show an alternative embodiment of the present invention.This embodiment demonstrates certain principals of operation intended tofacilitate improved interfacial load transfer characteristics by and/orbetween the device and patient bone tissue both intraoperatively andpostoperatively during the healing and incorporation processes. Thisembodiment includes flowable injection aperture 32 with injectionaperture end 36, flowable interdigitation aperture(s) 33, and/or keyingfeature 34. Keying feature 34 serves to facilitate mechanicalinterference between the bone/implant interface to prevent or mitigatesubsidence, rotation, and/or migration of the implant with respect tothe bone(s) to which it is attached. The curvilinear nature of thekeying feature geometries shown facilitates beneficial physiologicalresponse to both implant geometry and interfacial loading conditions to,in essence, give the body every “reason” to be happy with respondquickly and favorably to the presence of the implant. The skeletalsystem (and in fact almost the entirety of the human body) reacts inprofoundly different ways based upon the geometry of that which contactsit as well as the stiffness, elastic limit, chemical and/or biologicalcomposition, and porosity of the materials that contact it. Forinstance, Cobalt-Chrome and titanium materials are commonly consider“biocompatible”, yet if they are formed into a shape sharp featuressimilar to a splinter and implanted into the human body (skin, softtissue, or bone) they would be rejected, isolated, and eventuallyejected from the human body much in the way the a splinter of glass oraluminum will gradually be ejected.

In one embodiment, the flowable injection aperture 32 is intended tooperably interconnect with a nozzle-like feature of a PMMA (commonlyreferred to as “bone cement”) injection and/or mixing and/or deliverysystem device(s) (not shown). Other materials may be delivered through afeature of this kind including other flowable materials such asmorselized graft bones osteobiologic slurry, ceramic materials,antibiotic compounds, PLA and/or PGA based composition, or combinationof the aforementioned. As shown in FIG. 27 (and in a differentembodiment, FIG. 48), the flowable material is injected into and atleast partially within the implant by way of injection aperture 32 untilit emerges from flowable interdigitation aperture(s) 33 and into contactwith patient bone. Subsequent injection of additional flowable materialwill cause the flowable material to both contact and penetrate theporous surfaces of the patient bone and/or allograft device in areproducible manner to achieve mechanical interdigitation of theresultant implant/flowable material/patient bone construct.

This injection technique provides for excellent interdigitation betweenflowable material, implant devices, and patient bone tissue, and in thecase of dynamic disc replacement, it will be beneficial to limit and/orcontrol the amount of flowable material introduced in this fashion toavoid excessive extravasion of the flowable material. Especially in thecase of materials that harden or which will negatively impact theability of the implant/flowable material/patient bone construct toincorporate with living patient tissue (such as acting as a profoundbarrier to angiogenesis or blood vessel formation across thebone-implant interface), it is important that the injection of flowablematerial be controlled. In the case of bone cement, or slurriesincluding PMMA, the thermal, mechanical, and/or chemical processes ofcuring, and/or the mechanical and/or clinical consequences ofextravasion of curable compounds can be clinically catastrophic. Iffingers of cured bone cement encapsulating a section of or contact asurface of, for instance, the spinal cord, for example, and thevertebrae adjacent the implant of the present invention moving throughtheir respective ranges of motion, thus causing the fingers to harm theanatomic feature. One of ordinary skill in the art will recognizeuncontrolled extravasion of flowable material from flowableinterdigitation apertures 33 as a potentially catastrophic clinicalevent to be avoided. Furthermore, injection of flowable material into oradjacent the cartilage space may profoundly impact the durability of thepresent invention in a manner similar to “third body wear” as it iscommonly referred to in the field of long bone joint replacement (TKA,THA, TAA, Shoulder Arthroplasty, etc. . . . ). Simply put, failing tocontrol the volume, pressure, flow rate, and/or viscosity of theflowable material introduced into 32 may result in events analogous tothrowing a big old handful of sand into your car's oil pan while drivingat top speed—not a good thing.

Another event to avoid by way of controlled extravasion is, in oneembodiment of the present invention, the complete isolation of the graftmaterial of the present invention from vascularization by patient tissuethus inhibiting or preventing what is commonly referred to as ‘graftincorporation’, or, perhaps less commonly as ‘creeping substitution’.Graft incorporation and creeping substitution both refer to what couldbe loosely described as gradual colonization of graft material by livingpatient tissue. As patient cells begin to fill the porous surfaces ofthe graft material, they also make those graft materials, especially theinorganic structures comprised of such materials as hydroxyapatite,tricalcium phosphate, collogen, and others available to the patient'sbody as ‘raw material’ for absorbtion by the body and subsequent‘rebuilding’ of new bone whose physical and physiological structures arespecifically dictated by the response of the patient's body to thepresence of the implant and the patient's physical environment andactivities in general. It should be noted that a chisel, or any othercutting tool referred to herein, could be used to create complementaryresected endplate and/or anterior column bone resected surfaces to theimplant geometries of the embodiments of the present invention, such asa simple modification to the chisel or “punch” based instrumentation ofthe Synthes FRA based product described herein. Indicated by 36 in FIG.28, the injection aperture 32 may terminate in the surface 36, or may beangled or curved to emerge from keying feature 34 as a feature analogousto feature 33.

It should be noted that in this embodiment it is important that materialinjected into 32 not invade or penetrate, or traverse the cartilagebearing surface 34 for fear of harming the articular surfaces optimallyprovided by leaving the cartilage in its generally natural form. It iswithin the scope of the present invention to provide an alternateembodiment which is introduced through a generally anterior approach,yet feature 32 is located posteriorly or posteriolaterally for injectionof material through a posterior or posteriolateral incision throughwhich a facet arthroplasty device is implanted. Further, a balloon ormesh may be provided in conjunction with the embodiments of the presentinvention, similar to that indicated in FIGS. 41-48, which limitsflowable extravasion for purposes of either facilitating implantfixation or restoring vertebral body height and mechanical integrity ina manner recognizable as similar to Kyphoplasty techniques currentlyavailable (this could be highly beneficial as corpus or vertebral bodycollapse due to degenerative or traumatic causes is often associatedwith disc compromise calling for dynamic disc replacement). Theembodiment of the present invention shown in FIGS. 41-48 will bediscussed in greater detail later in this specification.

Yet another embodiment of the present invention implements secondaryfixation element 40 (also described herein as bone screw 40) shown inFIGS. 29 through 40. Bone screws have been used in the prior artextensively, but certain features of the bone screw 40 of the presentinvention provide additional and unanticipated clinical benefit. First,many screw designs have been proposed to affect preload between oracross fracture and/or bone/implant interfaces, but few have been provento be clinically successful as living bone tissue is subject to aphenomenon sometimes referred to as viscoelastic stress relaxation. Thisterm describes an incredibly complex chain of mechanically impactedphysiological events that, although partially quantified in theliterature, is not truly and emphatically embraced in the realm oforthopedics. For more detailed exploration of this phenomenon, referenceis made to U.S. Pat. No. 4,959,064 by John Engelhardt, and an article inthe literature entitled “Size Effects in the Elasticity andViscoelasticity of Bone” (Biomechan Model Mechanobiol 1 (2003) 295-301 ©Springer-Verlag 2003, both of which are included herein in theirentirety by reference. Simply put, if bone is subject to stressexceeding a poorly understood limit, sometimes referred to as theviscoelastic limit, bone will resorb away from that which istransmitting that stress to the bone causing “relaxation” of the loadswhich induced the stress. On the other hand, preloading implants intocontact with bone surfaces to facilitate ingrowth or incorporation is acommonly pursued goal, as is preloading of fractured bone surfaces inefforts to fix fractures with screws oriented generally, even vaguely,across said fracture. For the most part these efforts fail to optimallymaintain the desired preload for more than a few days postoperatively asthe desired preload combined with the bone/implant interfacialgeometries or bone/bone screw interfacial geometries induced stresses inexcess of those tolerated by bone. Knowing that stress is a function ofamong other things, force and surface area, it is reasonable to expectthat if the surface area about or across which preload is applied issignificantly increased, that the preload will not be lost toviscoelastic relaxation. The embodiments of bone screws of the presentinvention cures this deficiency by enabling a tremendous increase ineffective surface area per unit preload by way of providinginterdigitation of flowable materials, such as pre-polymerized PMMA/bonecements, into, between, and/or about a bone screw or fixation elementand surrounding porous living bone, or semi-porous living bone, ornon-porous living bone, or allograft cancellous or cortical bone, thanwould otherwise be afforded by contact between a screw or other fixationelement in the absence of flowable material based interdigitation. Asindicated in FIGS. 29-40, the bone screws/fixation elements of thisembodiment of the present invention includes several features, andalternative embodiments of those features.

FIG. 29 shows an embodiment of the secondary fixation element 40 or bonescrew 40 of the present invention. Bone screw 40 possesses driver matingfeature defined by drive surfaces 41 and 42 (the driver mating featureherein, and many other features of the bone screw of the presentinvention, is/are described in U.S. Pat. Nos. 6,162,225, 6,099,529 and6,506,192, by the inventor of the present invention, to a degree makingit redundant to re-describe them herein, and so, for the sake of brevityin this specification, all of the contents of these patents are hereinincluded by reference in their entirety, and features noted therein maywithout prejudice be interchanged with the features described herein),compression face feature 44 (for contact and/or mating with the implantsof the present invention), flowable injection feature 43, flowableinterdigitation aperture(s) 55 (feature 55 in FIG. 29 is in a slot-likein configuration and is interchangeable in most applications to flowableinterdigitation aperture(s) 45 in FIG. 30 which are for lack of a moreelegant term “cylinder-like” as shown in FIG. 32 in greater detail), androot and crest features directly indicated. FIG. 31 further shows thedirection (generally indicated as 143) into which flowable materials maybe injected into flowable injection aperture 43.

FIGS. 30, 32, and 33 show another embodiment of the bone screw 40 of thepresent invention in which additional features are disclosed. Flowableinterdigitation apertures(s) 45, previous described, are modified in theform of implant interdigitation features 46 which extends from theflowable injection aperture 43 to the surface 146 (which is operablysurrounded by 12 to enable the flowable material to emerge fromfeature(s) 46 and interdigitate with the allograft tissue of theacetabular plug, and thereby facilitate the fixation by and between thebone screw and the interior surfaces of 12, when the two are fixed withrespect to each other as generally shown in FIG. 34 and FIG. 36. Itshould be noted that the flowable material would emerge through 46 tocontact the interior surface of 12 by flowing in the general directiongenerally indicated as 246 in FIG. 36 to effectively interdigitate withthe porous or semi porous interior surface of 12). The purpose of thisadditional level of fixation by way of flowable material interdigitationbetween implant, bone screw, and patient bone is to effectively preloadthe resulting composite structure and to effectively strengthen thescrew, implant, and bone to enable the composite structure to bettersurvive the loads experienced by it and thereby facilitate incorporationand longevity.

In severely osteoporotic patients the bone in the center of thevertebral body is often extraordinarily soft and thereby ill suited tosupport the implants of the present invention without additionalstructural reinforcement. Flowable interdigitation apertures 45 or 55enable the injected flowable material to extrude and flow into thissoft, porous bone to not only increase the effective surface area aboutwhich a preload may be maintained (as previously discussed), but also tosignificantly improve the strength of the vertebral body itself. Twopictures of assemblies of the present invention are shown in FIG. 35 tomake it clear that the bone screw may come in various lengths and/ordiameters, and that the flowable interdigitation apertures may belocated at different locations along the bone screw 40 to enableinterdigitation and augmented fixation in different locations along thescrew and therefore within the vertebral body. The configuration shownin the upper assembly would facilitate fixation between the implants andthe interior and more anterior surfaces of the vertebral body while thelower assembly would facilitate fixation between the implants and theinterior and more central surfaces of the vertebral body by way ofchanges in the location of 55 or 45. Although not shown, features 45 or55 could be located at the leading end of the screw to facilitateinterdigitation with the vertebral body at the posterior most face ofthe interior of the vertebral body.

As shown in FIG. 38, the flowable injection aperture 43 may extendcompletely through bone screw 40 to facilitate interdigitation bothperipherally through 45 or 55 and longitudinally through the leading endof the screw 40. The bone screw 40 has additional features to facilitatefixation with living bone. As shown in FIG. 33, the flowable injectionaperture 43 may extend substantially along nearly the entirety of thebone screw 40 length even though the flowable interdigitation apertures45 or 55 are located more centrally. This embodiment of the bone screwof the present invention is especially useful when the bone screw isconstructed of human cortical allograft bone, or cortical xenograft, asthe injection of a flowable material such as PMMA or ‘bone cement’ willsignificantly increase the strength of the screw itself withoutinterfering substantially with the postoperative incorporation of thescrew within the vertebral body.

Another unique feature of the bone screw 40 is shown clearly in detail Bof FIG. 33 where an undercut 70 is formed between the crest and root ofthe thread form to effectively ‘cup’ the bone which is in contact withthe screw such that the bone in contact with the undercut is loadedsubstantially in compression in a direction generally parallel with theaxis of the screw as viewed in at least one plane as opposed to the loadstate created by traditional thread forms which include significantshear and radially oriented compressive force components. A ball mill,modified ball mill, or modified single point bit may be used to createthe undercut by manufacturing methodologies well understood in themachining art. It should also be noted that the flowable injectionaperture may terminate in a flat bottom, curved bottom, or 118 degreetapered drill tip bottom as generally indicated in Detail B of FIG. 33.

Yet another embodiment of the present invention is shown in detail inFIGS. 36 and 37. This shows a hemispherical protrusion formed in theimplant-bone interface surrounded by a substantially flat area. The flatarea of the implant-bone interface coincides with a substantially flatcut made on the endplate surface while the hemispherical protrusioncoincides with a substantially hemispherical cut in the central portionof the endplate. Preparation of the endplate surfaces may be performedin a manner similar to the instrumentation available for the Bryan™Cervical Disc or any other means or methods known in the art. Additionalfixation may optionally be provided by providing a form of XPin™ basedfixation. XPin™ fixation is a method and apparatus first proposed tofacilitate preload, or to maintain preload already attained betweenresected bone surfaces and implant fixation surfaces, and is describedin U.S. patent application Ser. No. 11/075,840, which is incorporated byreference in their entirety. In this embodiment of the presentinvention, an aperture is formed in the vertebral body which isgenerally coaxial with the XPin aperture 302, or, alternatively,intersecting XPin aperture 302, or, alternatively, extends into thevertebral body on the far side of 302. Upon completion of the cut(s)coinciding with 301 and 300, the implant is inserted between theresected endplates and contacted with the resected surfaces. The implantmay then be preloaded by instrumented means into preloaded contact withthe resected surfaces with the aperture formed in the vertebral bodyproperly aligned with 302. In this preloaded state, bone cement, orother flowable material which hardens over time, may be injected intothe aperture formed in the vertebral body, through 302, and into thevertebral body on the opposite side of 300 through 302. Upon hardeningof the flowable material, the instrumentation which induced preload maybe removed and the preload maintained by the XP in composite structurethus created. This is another application of the present inventionswherein careful control of the total volume of flowable material intothe vertebral body must be exercised to avoid either deleteriousextravasion or retardation of incorporation. Simply offering, forinstance, a pre-packaged, pre-measured amount of flowable material in an“injection gun” is the simplest way to achieve this objective.

FIGS. 41-48 show yet another embodiment of the present invention. Thecomponents of this embodiment include ring 401, mesh 400, ring retainingfeature 402, flowable injection aperture 443, and flowableinterdigitation aperture 445. Instrument preload feature(s) 410 are alsoshown. Ring 401, and mesh 400 may be preassembled as indicated in FIGS.42-43, and then attached to ring retaining feature 402 of the implant.One method of assembly would be to apply a coating of adhesive into thesurfaces of ring retaining feature 402 into which the ring 401, and mesh400 would be inserted to affect adhesive and/or mechanical bonding.Furthermore, an undercut in 402 may be provided for mating with a splitring embodiment of ring 402 as is well known in the mechanical arts. Theresulting assembly of 400, 401 and Acetabular plug is shown in FIGS.44-48. Intraoperatively, the implant would be inserted between theprepared or resected endplate surfaces, including a resected surface tointimately mate with the “inflated shape” of the mesh 400 (see FIG. 47for a comparison of inflated versus uninflated shapes for mesh 400),optionally preloaded into contact with the endplate, a flowableinjection nozzle engaged to 443, and flowable material injected from thenozzle, through 443, and “up under” mesh 400 (as shown by thejuxtaposition of the mesh 400 over 445 in FIG. 44) by way of flowableinterdigitation aperture 445.

Additional injection of flowable material will ‘inflate’ the mesh to anominal shape determined by both the mesh 400 and the coincidingresected surface to the mesh as generally shown in FIG. 48. It should benoted that the mesh may be highly porous to allow for extravasion of theflowable material through the pores of the mesh (such as when used withbone cement), or the pores could be configured for use with morselizedcancellous or cortical allograft or autograft wherein the graft materialwould essentially “poke out” of the mesh a bit to allow contact betweenthe graft and the surrounding living bone to effect intimate contactbetween the graft and the mesh, as well as intimate contact between themesh and the living bone. The teachings of this mesh methodology aresimilar to the work by Kuslich, et al. as described, for example, inU.S. Pat. No. 5,549,679. The teachings of Kuslich et al are improvedupon by providing the means and methods to provide for improved implantfixation by way of mesh inflation in dynamic disc replacement. Thisembodiment of the present invention also serves to increase theeffective bone-implant contact surface area of an implant surface by atleast 30% compared to comparable non-mesh designs. This embodiment ofthe present invention also provides for significant resistance toexpulsion of the intervertebral implants of the present invention outfrom between the endplates of the vertebral bodies by way ofinterference between the inflated mesh and the coinciding resectedsurface(s)

Alternate Articular Allograft Sources—The embodiments of the dynamicdisc replacement implant of the present invention are shown as havingbeen derived from a human hip joint. It is to be understood that this isfor illustrative purposes only and that the implant may be derived fromany joint including the knee (as shown in FIG. 50 this could be derivedof tibiofemoral articular surfaces or patellofemoral surfaces as showngenerally by dashed lines), or the ankle (as shown in FIG. 49 by thedashed lines) wherein the cuts made to remove the articular grafts aregenerally indicated by dashed lines. Other joints suitable as sourcesfor HipAllo implants include the elbow, wrist, shoulder, and the spineitself.

Another family of embodiments of the present invention include removingintact intervertebral discs still bearing vertebral body bone on upperand lower texture bearing surfaces similar to 10 in FIG. 24, andoptionally including the Alternate Keying Features and/or fixationfeatures hereinbefore discussed.

Simultaneous Dynamic Disc Replacement and Facet Arthroplasty—FacetArthroplasty is a technical field currently in its infancy and beingpioneered by Archus Orthopaedics, Inc. of Seattle, Wash., for example.Numerous reports in the literature indicate that the majority ofpatients who have degenerative disc conditions calling for dynamic discreplacement cannot receive dynamic disc implants alone due todegeneration of the facets. Simply put, if you are going to use adynamic disc as a treatment alternative to fusion, you will almostalways need to replace the facet articular surfaces as well. It iswithin the scope of the present invention to provide allograft basedfacet arthroplasty implants derived from spinal facet tissue or othercartilage bearing articular joint tissue as per the teachings of theembodiments of the present invention. It is also within the scope of thepresent invention to mechanically fix the facet arthroplasty devices toboth the vertebral body and the dynamic disc replacement implants of thepresent invention to stabilize and fix them with respect to each otherand the spinal body.

As previously discussed, dynamic or static simultaneous balancing of theposterior and anterior column articulations of the spine may beimplemented to ensure the accurate placement of the facet arthroplastyimplants and dynamic disc replacement implants with respect to eachother given the kinematics of the patients spine. Critical elements ofboth dynamic and static balancing techniques include distraction of thefacing endplate surfaces to an extent corresponding to the size of thedynamic disc replacement device to be implanted therebetween,distraction of the facing degenerated facet surfaces to an extentcorresponding to the size of the facet arthroplasty device to beimplanted therebetween, and observing the appropriateness of theresulting anterior column and posterior column balance. Dynamicbalancing techniques would include the additional step of moving onevertebral body through its range of motion with respect to the adjacentvertebral body to enable verification of the balance attained betweenthe anterior column and posterior column throughout the range of motionof one vertebral body with respect to the other.

Additional Techniques—Several techniques in addition to the ones notedabove are within the scope of the present invention. These include thefollowing:

A method for implanting an allograft derived dynamic disc replacementimplant comprising the steps of: removing facing cartilage bearing bonesurfaces from a mammalian joint; shaping surfaces of the bone surfacesin a shape to mate with resected vertebral body endplate surfaces;resecting the endplate surfaces of adjacent vertebral bodies, the stepof resecting the endplate surfaces resulting in resected endplatesurfaces to mate with the bone surfaces; and inserting the bone surfacesbetween the resected endplate surfaces. This method can further includesecondary fixation features implemented to augment fixation of the bonesurfaces to the resected endplate surfaces. The method can also includea flowable material which is introduced between the bone surfaces andthe resected endplate surfaces, the flowable material comprising one ofan osteobiologic agent, bone cement, antibiotic, morselized bone,biocompatible ceramic beads or particles, compounds includinghydroxyapatite, tricalcium phosphate, or other osteoconductive orosteoinductive compositions, including, but not limited to bonemorphagenic proteins (BMPs) or other recombinant technology derivedsubstance, or which flowable material is a combination of any or all ofthe aforementioned.

In another embodiment of the present invention, a synovial tissueconstruct is used in conjunction with the embodiments of the presentinvention. Synovial membranes generate synovial fluid which is presentin normal, healthy long bone joints and acts as a lubricant therefore.Although it is likely that a pseudoarthrosis may form about the implantsof the present invention by way of normal healing processes, it iswithin the scope of the present invention to encapsulate the adjacentarticular surfaces of the present invention with a synovial bearingtissue construct to generate synovial fluid and therefore providelubrication for the devices. Such synovial tissue may be derived fromdonor tissue, or patient tissue, and may be cultured and/or “grown” asknown in the art of recombinant DNA based technologies.

The following patents and patent applications describing varioussurgical navigation system and alignment and guide systems that may beutilized in whole or in part with this embodiment of the presentinvention are hereby incorporated by reference:

-   -   U.S. 2004/0122436, U.S. 2003/0069591, U.S. 2004/0039396, U.S.        2004/0153083, U.S. Pat. No. 5,810,827, U.S. Pat. No. 6,595,997,        U.S. 2003/0069585, U.S. 2003/0028196, JP74214-2002, U.S.        2003/0208122, U.S. Pat. No. 6,725,080, U.S. 2004/0122305, U.S.        Pat. No. 6,685,711, U.S. 2004/0153085, U.S. 2004/0152970, U.S.        Pat. No. 6,694,168, WO04100758, WO04070580, WO04069036, U.S.        Pat. No. 5,799,055, U.S. Pat. No. 6,236,875, U.S. Pat. No.        6,285,902, U.S. Pat. No. 6,340,363, U.S. Pat. No. 6,348,058,        U.S. Pat. No. 6,430,434, U.S. Pat. No. 6,470,207, U.S. Pat. No.        6,477,400, U.S. Pat. No. 6,491,699, U.S. Pat. No. 6,697,664,        U.S. Pat. No. 6,701,174, U.S. Pat. No. 6,711,432, U.S. Pat. No.        6,725,080, U.S. Pat. No. 6,796,988, and U.S. Pat. No. 6,827,723.

The following patents and patent applications, also by the inventor ofthe present invention, describe various surgical alignment guides, drillguides, and/or cutting guides and methods therefore, and implantfixation apparatus and/or methods that may be utilized in whole or inpart with the embodiment of the present invention are herebyincorporated by reference:

-   -   U.S. Pat. Nos. 5,514,139, 5,597,379, 5,643,272, 5,810,827, and        U.S. Publ. No. US2002-0029038 A1, US2006-0015109,        US2006-0015115, US2006-0015116, US2006-0015117.

Benefit will also be found in an embodiment of the present inventionwhere a bracket is positioned and fixed to the side of the vertebrawherein the bracket is configured to receive cutting guide surfaces asillustrated in U.S. Pat. No. 6,695,848 (which is herein incorporated byreference) FIGS. 13A through 15C by Haines.

It should be noted that the individual embodiments of the presentinvention are shown to be illustrative, not limiting to the scope of thepresent invention. Specifically, any individual features describedherein may be combined with any other features herein or known in theart while being within the scope of the present invention. Furthermore,the majority of the embodiments shown herein are described to beimplanted by way of an anterior approach to the spine, but one ofordinary skill in the art will readily recognize those modificationsenabling the embodiments of the present invention to be implanted fromany orientation with respect to the spine including, but not limited to,anterolateral, posterior, posterolateral, superiorly and/or inferiorly;All such methods and/or modified embodiments of the present inventionare within the scope of the present invention. It is an object of oneembodiment of this invention to provide methods and apparatus fordynamic disc replacement in conjunction with facet arthroplasty. Methodsand apparatus for dynamic disc replacement and facet arthroplastywherein the dynamic disc replacement is operably interconnected and/ormechanically fixed with respect to facet arthroplasty implants.

It is an objective of one embodiment of the present invention to providemethods and apparatus for disc replacement without articular materialswhere debris generation may lead to osteolysis or other forms of foreignbody reaction or inflammatory response.

It is an additional object of one embodiment of the present invention toprovide methods and apparatus for dynamic disc replacement whichimplement preloaded bone implant interfaces for a prolongedpostoperative preload of said interfaces by increasing the surface areaagainst which the preload is attained by the injection of a fluid orslurry which subsequently polymerizes or hardens between implant andbone interfaces.

It is also an object of one embodiment of the present invention toprovide methods and apparatus for dynamic disc replacement which enable6 degrees of freedom of motion between adjacent vertebrae including 3degrees of rotational freedom and 3 degrees of translational freedom,all of which degrees of freedom occurring about or along 3 mutuallyperpendicular axes.

It is another object of one embodiment of the present invention toprovide methods and apparatus for dynamic disc replacement whereintranslational degrees of freedom about 3 mutually perpendicular axes areconstrained by a shock absorbing viscoelastic material intimatelyadhered to material whose modulus of elasticity is within +/−30% of themodulus of elasticity of living bone tissue to which the implant isattached.

It is a further object of one embodiment of the present invention toprovide methods and apparatus for dynamic disc replacement where allinorganic materials of the implants are comprised of materialsindigenous to mammalian bodies with the optional exceptions of bonecement, antibiotics, and/or osteobiologic agents.

It is an additional object of one embodiment of the present invention toprovide methods and apparatus for dynamic disc replacement wherein theclinical performance of the disc implant is relatively insensitive tovariations in surgical technique.

It is another object of one embodiment of the present invention toprovide methods and apparatus for dynamic disc replacement which, whenimplanted by way of an anterior approach, may be revised by a posteriorapproach fusion or revision dynamic disc.

It is yet an additional object of one embodiment of the presentinvention to provide methods and apparatus for dynamic disc replacementwherein the disc implant and/or the endplate contacting components ofthe disc implant is/are inserted between the adjacent endplatessimultaneously.

These objects and others are met by the methods and apparatus fordynamic disc replacement and/or facet arthroplasty of the presentinvention. It is an often repeated rule of thumb for orthopedic surgeonsthat a “Well placed, but poorly designed implant will perform wellclinically, while a poorly placed, well designed implant will performpoorly clinically.” A corollary to this statement is that the bestpossible implant design is one whose performance is most independent ofvariations in surgical technique. The present invention provides anapparatus inherently less sensitive to variations in technique by use ofconstructs derived from human joints. In addition, many of theembodiments shown have unique applicability to minimally invasivesurgical (MIS) procedures and/or for use in conjunction with SurgicalNavigation, Image Guided Surgery, or Computer Aided Surgery systems.

The complete disclosures of the patents, patent applications andpublications cited herein are incorporated by reference in theirentirety as if each were individually incorporated. Variousmodifications and alterations to this invention will become apparent tothose skilled in the art without departing from the scope and spirit ofthis invention. It should be understood that this invention is notintended to be unduly limited by the illustrative embodiments andexamples set forth herein and that such examples and embodiments arepresented by way of example only with the scope of the inventionintended to be limited only by the claims set forth herein.

1. An apparatus for dynamic spinal arthroplasty comprising: an implantfor placement between two adjacent vertebral bodies which replacestissue damaged by trauma or disease wherein said implant possesses atleast two hyaline cartilage bearing surfaces, each bearing surfacehaving an outer side adapted to be interfaced with a bone surface of oneof the two adjacent vertebral bodies and having an inner side thatincludes a smooth hyaline cartilage layer over at least a portion of theinner side that interfaces with the smooth hyaline cartilage layer ofanother one of the at least two bearing surfaces to enable physiologicalloading and movement of the two adjacent vertebral bodies with respectto one another.
 2. The implant of claim 1 wherein one of the at leasttwo bearing surfaces is connected to an other of the at least twobearing surfaces by ligament material.
 3. The implant of claim 1 whereinan outer surface of at least one of the at least two bearing surfacesincludes augmented implantation structures defined thereon.
 4. Theimplant of claim 3 wherein the augmented implantation structures includefeatures machined on the outer surface.
 5. A method for dynamic spinalarthroplasty for a patient comprising: providing an implant having atleast two hyaline cartilage bearing surfaces, each bearing surfacehaving an outer side adapted to be interfaced with a bone surface of oneof two adjacent vertebral bodies and having an inner side that includesa smooth hyaline cartilage layer over at least a portion of the innerside that interfaces with the smooth hyaline cartilage layer of anotherone of the at least two bearing surfaces; and providing instructions forperforming a dynamic spinal arthroplasty procedure, the instructionsincluding: removing material from between two adjacent vertebral bodiesof the patient; and inserting the implant between the two adjacentvertebral bodies in the patient such that the at least two hyalinecartilage surfaces enable physiological loading and movement of the twoadjacent vertebral bodies with respect to one another.